The term you probably want in this case is Relative Clause. There are other kinds of adjective clauses (i.e, noun-modifying clauses), but relatives are by far the most common and the most complex. In particular, relative clauses, like many subordinate clauses, are subject to a variety of deletion rules that make them shorter, or even shorter still.
In the original context, how to correct this error was intended as a question, but this is not a standard way to ask a question. It isn't a sentence, nor is it an interrogative, and it shouldn't have a question mark at the end of it. It's a content clause, or what is misleadingly called a "noun clause." Content clauses of this type would typically be used in ...
It should be punctuated as in your example, with commas around the 'say'.
They are parenthetical commas, because they perform the same function as putting brackets around 'say' - "If you have (say) a bucket..." They are there to prevent the problem you correctly identified, by indicating that 'bucket' is not the object of 'say'.
Quirk et al is a good grammar but weak, I think, on complex sentences.
What we're looking at in all of these examples is the remains of deceased clauses.
Of the four sentences, two:
I saw her leave the room
I heard someone shouting
are examples of special constructions that are limited to sense verbs, one with an infinitive and the other with a gerund. ...
"How to correct this error?" is missing a subject and a (finite) verb. So any of the following, or many variants, would look more complete as questions:
How do I correct this error?
How would you correct this error?
How might one correct this error?
Strange as it may sound, the subject of "was" is, in the opinion of many renowned grammarians (please read N.B. below), the relative pronoun "as". In that sentence, "as" is not a conjunction but a relative word equivalent to sentential relative "which", but, unlike the latter, which always appears after the sentence to which it refers, "as" can precede the ...
How to...? is not a grammatical sentence, but is well-understood in Q&A contexts. How do I...? is a grammatical sentence.
While both contain what look like verbs, the first construction is using an infinitive form ("to correct", in your example), which can't stand as the main verb in a sentence. (For one thing, it has no subject.)
Apply Equation 1, use Lemma 2, and exploit Theorem 3, to prove the finiteness of the result.
In this case the whole list seems to "prove the finiteness of the result".
Apply Equation 1, use Lemma 2, and exploit Theorem 3 to prove the finiteness of the result.
In this case I'd say that it is ambiguous, but can you expect your reader to understand how ...
As __ was traditional for unmarried women, Jane lived at home her entire life.
It has no overt subject.
The expression in bold is an adjunct of comparison with the preposition "as" as head. The comparative clause functioning as complement to "as" is structurally incomplete as I've marked with __ to represent the missing subject, though it is recoverable ...
How to . . .? is fine in many contexts in which it is likely to occur. It will frequently be found as a heading. However, if you are asking the question yourself, How do I . . .? would be more usual, and is to be preferred if you think your readers won't like the alternative.
The subject of "was" is apparently missing. This is a complex sentence, so not all parts have to have all the elements of a main clause. The main clause of the sentence is the second part, "Jane lived at home her entire life."
I found the following explanation in"A Short Overview of English Syntax based on The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," by ...
To (also in order to, having the same meaning as in order that and so that) in each of those sentences is a subordinating conjunction, which is what begins a dependent clause. The comma is not necessary between the two clauses, but (as FumbleFingers says) it is preferred when it improves readability, which is usually when the first clause is rather long.
The question seems to me to turn on whether or not as well as is a coordinator. If it is, then the following verb behaves as if and had been used instead, that is, the subject becomes plural and so does the verb. But as well as says something that and does not. And places the two items on an equal footing, but as well as gives grammatical priority to the ...
This is known as a garden path sentence, because it is written (perhaps deliberately) to mislead you about its clause structure. The actual structure of the sentence is:
[While Nancy was dressing] [the baby played in the garden.]
The problem is that it's very easy to parse the sentence this way, especially on first read:
[While Nancy was dressing the ...
1) Yes, it's fine. Semicolons are OK wherever there is a full stop intonation; they indicate that "there is still some question about the preceding full sentence; something needs to be added", as Lewis Thomas puts it.
2) "No;" is called an Utterance. As you point out, it's not a clause -- no subject, no verb, etc. -- much less a sentence. But it does ...
Bill J puts it clearly (I admit I've tidied a bit):
‘They have appeared on message boards and in blogs, and have been
spread by word of mouth’.
Concerning your question about the conjoining of clauses: although ...
the second clause above may seem dependent because it appears to have
no subject, that’s not actually the case. ‘They’ is the ...
My inclinations are the same as the OP's (err in the first sentence, errs in the second). But according to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p.1316) our inclination in the first case would be wrong. It cites the example:
Beauty as well as love is redemptive.
and explains the singular verb as follows:
" ... the 3rd person singular verb-form is ...
I agree with Mr. Shiny and New 安宇, but I would add the caveat that even though his reading of the version with comma is formally correct, it does not escape the Fundamental Law that "Anything which can be misunderstood will be".
I would suggest moving the final clause to make your meaning unambiguous. If all three operations are required for the proof, ...
This question is as much about what form of the first person singular personal pronoun should follow ‘It is . . .’ as it is about the form of the subsequent verb be.
The normal response to a question such as ‘Who’s there?’ is ‘It’s me.’ However, when, as here, the clause is modified by a relative clause, I loses the formality it has in the response ‘It is ...
First, this is a metaphor. Like all metaphors it has a number of possible interpretations. It's not literal, and people do not in fact put a physical chip on their physical shoulder. I'm 70 years old, and I've never seen any actual human being who literally had a chip on their shoulder.
Second, this metaphor refers to any person who seems to take offense ...
Yes, the second half of the phrase is missing, but that doesn't inherently make it bad grammar - that just makes it an ellipsis.
Do not be the person we ask to leave the auditorium, because we will (ask you to leave if we have to)!
I think 'because' is a slightly awkward conjunction in that sentence, which is probably why it sounds a little off. But I ...
In formal writing, the sentence would appear in its full form as The chances are that he overslept this morning. In the form Chances are, he overslept this morning it will normally only be found in speech, or in the most informal writing, where we frequently contract what would be found in more formal contexts. That doesn't make it ungrammatical. It makes it ...
A comma is required after model because, although the phrase comes at the beginning of the sentence, it is a weak interruption. That is to say, you would still have a viable sentence if you removed it.
You need the second comma, because what follows is a supplementary, not an integrated, relative clause.
Commas have a particular grammatical purpose: a pair of commas separates parenthetical content from the main sentence. Normally there might be a slight pause at the commas when reading the sentence, but a slight pause when reading is not a reason to introduce a comma when the grammar does not require it.
The book title, Book, is not parenthetical content in ...
All English clauses have subjects. However, the subjects of clauses are often deleted, by various rules, if they are predictable from context and from higher or parallel clauses.
In example (1), there are actually two sentences; semicolons are essentially periods. So the clauses are not really conjoined. The second sentence is an imperative, as noted, and ...
It is an example of a [reduced] absolute phrase.
The following from grammar.ccc.com:
Usually (but not always, as we shall see), an
absolute phrase (also called a nominative absolute) is a group of
words consisting of a noun or pronoun and a participle as well as any
related modifiers. Absolute phrases do not directly connect ...
I would definitely use a comma. A semi-colon joins two related sentences and you have only one, albeit long, sentence.
If you do do "their heads were crooked" then you do have two sentences, but I would use a period, not a semi-colon.
I don't know your experience with English, but rarely do you need a semi-colon. If you have 2 sentences, a period works.
Yes it does.
1）Since you are unemployed, why did you leave your last job?
2）Since you are innocent, why did you flee?
3）Since you are a Christian, why do you believe in a personal God like this?
Now these all assert something to be true, where before they only assumed something might be true.
1) Does if here suggest a hypothesis, which means ...